Wordpress vs HTML: Is There a Traffic Advantage?

Yes, WP is a cinch to set up. It seems that right out of the box that Google likes it better than Joomla for instance and with the sitemap plugins and being able to change the permalinks to something that is SE friendly I go for WP.
(But I can not write HTML either)
HTH

There is a myth that search engines (G?) "likes" WordPress, so everybody should create only WP sites...

The truth is, search engines don't inherently "like" WP. Especially not, when comparing it vs. HTML pages/sites. Think: the end result (=output) of the WP powered sites is also pure HTML!

If you know how to build HTML sites and how to get them indexed in SEs, how to get them in a good position in SERPs - you don't need WP. And take this from somebody who is using WP longer than 99.99% of the members here

The advantage of using WP for code-illiterate "webmasters" is the built-in power of pinging the update services automatically whenever a new post is made; the easiness to create xml sitemaps; the possibly well-structured HTML - depending on your theme designer's skills, of course; the simple way of changing the layout/design (themes); etc.

However, there is (or should be) a distinction here when we talk about advantages:
- all those advantages making your life easier will not, necessarily, translate into making your site better!

It's actually not that hard to do this, provided you know a little PHP and Javascript. I've written custom video and iframe plugins for clients that were very simple and lightweight which used the WordPress shortcode method (kind of like BBCode).

Probably the greatest hitch in learning how to manipulate WordPress for the average person who's done HTML is understanding how server side scripting (PHP, ASP, JSP, ASP.NET, etc) works to build a website. Once you're over this learning curve things become much simpler for you.

But, to get to your overall question...

SEO traffic primarily comes from building links in quantity with quality in mind along with having keyword relevant content and some basic onsite optimization (this part is somewhat optional if you build strong links). How the site is created really doesn't matter so much in this scenario.

Of course, WP has several tools right out of the box and via a few simple plugins to handle the onsite portion where a plain HTML site would require a more manual process or a custom coded process. This can give people the perception that "Google luvs WordPress".

Both have advantages and disadvantages.

What are your goals?

Figure that out first and then select the tools that help you achieve the best results.

I know this doesn't answer your question but it's a more complex question than you might think. There really is no best at everything solution but there are tools that are better suited for specific needs.

I love wordpress and use if for everything but I have the advantage of being able to write code and tweak wordpress do anything I want. This isn't the case for everybody so what you can do with wordpress and what I can do with wordpress aren't comparable.

Anyway, traffic advantage... also depends on your skill level. If a person cannot write a single line of html, wordpress is a great tool but a skilled designer could whip something up with dreamweaver that would smoke a typical wordpress theme when it comes to on-page SEO.

I've never understood why so many people think that WP blogs are easier than html. On the initial install, yes of course. But when you actually get into the nitty-gritty of creating a good website the easy part does get lost in the shuffle.

I've created my own HTML templates that take about an hour to setup (that's mostly doing the drop in of graphics and copy particular to that website). It takes me about the same on a WP blog, installing the 6-7 must have plugins, filling in all the settings.

Now I've been doing HTML for a long time so it is easy for me. And although the first blog I set up mystified me, as soon as I saw it was just a PHP script it all fell into place.

To me it's just a matter of which platform might work the best for the subject matter and type of website. Considering you can have a very functional blog or HTML website built for you for under $75, you don't even need to be able to do it yourself if you have a budget for your business (which you should if at all possible these days).

I really haven't seen my blogs outrank my HTML websites. But I have seen blogs that rank well that are pretty basic (good content but no snazzy stuff). It all comes back to making sure you've done your research properly, then either flavor can do well. It just depends on your skillset or budget which one might be better.

Those are really helpful and insightful answers - thanks to all of you who've responded so far.

On balance, I think I'll stick to my html and Dreamweaver, although I do take the point about the learning curve of understanding scripts and code - that is something that's becoming increasingly necessary.

Strange to think, too, that adding a sitemap to an html site is something that some folks would find difficult - Google has a free tool that makes it a cinch - but it's easy to forget that "one man's meat is another man's poison".

Overall, I'm getting the message that as far as ranking (and therefore organic traffic) goes, Google doesn't care how the site is made. Is that a fair summary?

Both WP and HTML are great, it depends on what you are wanting to do. If the content is great then either one will work fine. WP just does much of the Slug work, link work etc... for you.

How much traffic do you expect? HTML handles large volume much much much better than WP. WP gets heavy very fast and eats CPU at an umbelievable rate. Adding a few plugins, a pic per post, a theme and there went the CPU. Granted if your expected traffic if below 2,000 visitors per hour during surge it should be fine, if you are looking at above that then get ready to open your wallet for servers and be prepared to babysit the server 24/7

You can serve cache with WP but that locks your counters if you are working to build traffic to sell advertising then stats wont rise.

Again it all depends on what you are wanting. With a simple site, html would work fine, optimize pages and urls as you go.

WordPress blogs are very search engine friendly, and several themes allow you to customize the SEO settings. It's also easy to set up and maintain - and if you're able to update more regularly then Google will crawl your site more often which helps it to rank higher.

Google doesn't love Wordpress like it used to . . a lot of Wordpress blogs and web sites have been hammered by recent algorithm changes . . .

Wordpress is the way to go these days. It's dynamic, it's flexible and it's easy to add plug-ins. HTML on the other hand is static. Change one navigation link and you need to change it on all pages.

Wordpress is very SEO friendly too since it makes use of headings, and the addition of an seo plugin enhances it even more.

Google doesn't love Wordpress per se but its just that most wordpress blogs have all the SEO on-page requirement which made them rank higher in search engine.

Thoughts from a newbie:
I would stick with what I know and feel comfortable with so you can move forward quickly.
I rather learn one system very well and build on it. My vote is WP for newbies.